That really is pretty harsh. I've never seen him say anything like that.

References would be in order for sure. Coming up with them would certainly keep him busy for a pleasantly long time.

Thank you, by the way.

All I have ever seen him do is support every bogus grievance against the Jews, especially Israel.

You know, I was at the store yesterday and when I wasn't thinking about what I needed to buy, my mind wandered to this accusation, and it occurred to me that maybe it was my speculation that the rule for inherited jewry was based on birth by a Jewish mother was because it allowed Jewish men to disregard responsibility for their extramarital activities with gentile women. Was that what set you off?

Rest assured, rules, particularly religious ones, have historically been made by us guys. Women have largely had no say in them, at least prior to 50 years ago and that bias certainly rears it's head.

In the case of Judaism, I fault it for advocating a racial or religious based supremecy: You know the "we're God's chosen people" line. Putin once warned us Americans about the dangers of any people considering themselves exceptional, that after Obama made the claim for us Americans. Putin was right, and the same principle applies to Jews. No people should consider themselves more privileged then the rest of the world, and it's especially dangerous when it's religiously based. In my opinion we can see that in the attitudes of many Israeli jews in regards to illegal settlements and the general treatment of not just Palestinians. (i.e God gave us this holy land so everyone here should get the hell off it or die). Essentially, the basic tenant of Judaism (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that non-jews pretty much exist for the benefit of jews. It's actually not unlike how we as humans regard the existence of cattle, though of course not to that level.

Christian zionists obviously enable this type of thinking, and of course they largely agree with it, as Judaism is without dispute the father of Christianity.

But to be clear, I'm not just picking on Judaism. Islam has it's supremecy tenants also, though it's not ethnically based (perhaps one tiny consolation with that faith). Their problem is it sex-based. The whole 72 virgins bit. Women are basically chattel ... property of men, and at some point centuries ago, perhaps dating back to even Mohammed, the guys there decided that paradise must like a brothel. I suppose that was due to the limits of their imagination, or perhaps sex was the only thing that gave them any kind of respite from a life perhaps devoid of any other physical enjoyments. So with Islam, women pay the price and with Judaism, gentiles pay the price.

So assuming you are not simply confusing me with someone else who actually posts Jew-hating material (which maybe you are) it could be instead that I am simply open to criticizing Judaism just like I'll criticize any other faith or idea. Perhaps you, on the other hand, consider Jews to be God's Chosen People such that saying anything about them that does not cast them in a favorable light is automatically Jew hating or anti-semitic. If that's the case, then I'll leave the labeling in your little world to you.

I do have though at least one Jewish friend. I went to a bar mitzvah for his daughter many, many years ago, and I sat down for lunch with him a couple months back. He's a great guy. He loves people and he would have paid for my meal had I let him. Well he did, actually. I just insisted on paying the tip.

I don't know how you are going to sort all this out in your simple black n white world, but I guess you have some homework to do now, assuming you choose to do it.

Cheers....

In my opinion we can see that in the attitudes of many Israeli jews in regards to illegal settlements and the general treatment of not just Palestinians. (i.e God gave us this holy land so everyone here should get the hell off it or die). Essentially, the basic tenant of Judaism (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that non-jews pretty much exist for the benefit of jews. It's actually not unlike how we as humans regard the existence of cattle, though of course not to that level.

I think you overstate or misinterpret this.

Jews, coming from such an ancient culture, do naturally consider Gentiles as transient peoples, always getting conquered, adrift in history. Naturally, they will seek their own advantage. And this is a characteristic of all the Semitic peoples. Arabs are certainly that way, just not as competently as Jews have become because of their considerable education and cultural diversity.

And modern Jews are simply not the Jews of yesteryear. In Israel, they still maintain a pretty consistent Jewish culture. But the larger majority of Jews scattered around the world (Europe, North and South America, etc.) no longer have that cultural solidarity. The rabbis have worried for years about the rates of intermarriage, about Jewish men marrying Gentile women (or vice versa), about all the issues involving intermarriage and children. And gay marriage has made it worse, with some wealthy Jews wanting their Jewish sons to marry their Catholic boyfriend and give them a few little adopted Chinese girls to play the role of granddaughter.

This is a long and increasingly bitter debate among the various denominations and endless organizations that Jews debate these issues in.

Judaism, especially in the Diaspora, just isn't nearly as Jewish as it used to be. Those old cultural norms have broken, perhaps irrevocably. And the rabbis and older generation can't get the younger generation to see it as anything important. Very upsetting to the traditionalists to consider that in 20 years, only 15%-20% of all Jews in the world will be married to a Jewish spouse. They also worry about producing enough children because they are well-below replacement rates (other than Orthodox Jews who have tons of kids). The Ashkenazim aren't exactly happy that the future of Judaism are the Orthodox Jews merely due to their prolific breeding.

These are not happy topics of discussion for Jewish leaders.

I'll repeat that BBC link from above. Look at what Bibi's brother-in-law is saying about the rumors that Bibi's son is dating a Norwegian Gentile.

BBC: The Jewish fear of intermarriage

Moderate & peaceful Muslims have to deal with accusations about how the Koran states that unbelievers must be executed. They accept the passages as real, of course but dismiss it as being either antiquated teaching or needing to be taken in proper context of the day. So it seems both peaceful Muslims and progressive Jews have that difficulty in common.

I remember Sally, AKA Goldi-lox of LP, a converted Jew, telling me on the phone once how Jews were not allowed ot charge fellow Jews interest on loans. If a white organization were to announce such a policy to fellow whites, it would certainly be a basis of serious accusation of white supremacy. But of course, you cannot accuse or ever suggest Judaism is a supremacist faith without risking being called an Jew hater or anti-semite, which, as you've seen, happened to me on this thread. Well, I guess my sin was in suggesting one Jewish tenant, however old it's origins may be, may have been formulated to excuse parental responsibility of Jewish men who have sex with gentile women.

Christians recognize that God loves everyone equally no matter their genes, origins or sins, but Judaism simply doesn't go along with that, at least as far as the old testament goes.

Deuteronomy 10:19 “Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

I remember Sally, AKA Goldi-lox of LP, a converted Jew, telling me on the phone once how Jews were not allowed ot charge fellow Jews interest on loans.

She never did convert. She flirted with it but didn't carry through.

So maybe a Gentile woman isn't the most reliable source of info.

And, yes, Jews do charge interest to other Jews.

I am not convinced Israel wants peace at all...

Huh??

All they've done is extend the olive branch while ceding land back to their perpetually hostile Muzzie tormentors after gaining it it two major wars (started of course BY Muzzie neighbors.)

Ping, you do understand the Koran's commandments with respect to Jews (I assume)?

Arafat was offered land, territory that would be considered a "Palestinian state" but rejected it. He took the money and the perpetual victimhood. Oh. And their "deal" is to occupy Israel. No compromise.

*It needs to be noted that there is no "Palestinian" people, nor "Palestinian" culture, history, or semblance of gubmint or official leader UNTIL the sliver-state of Israel was re-established in 1948 (btw, their share of sovereign land was originally promised to be far greater -- until the Brits decided to give the vast majority of territory to Muslim pan-Jordan.)

If Trump were to make the same ultimatum to Israel...

a) Trump, the US, the UN are in NO position to deliver any such ultimatum to any sovereign nation.

b) "Palestine" DOES. NOT. EXIST. Nor does its culture or ANY history.

AIPAC would go anti-trump in an instant.

I would concede that AIPAC does wield too much influence in America's affairs and self-interest.

I saw Times of Israel also reported that France's new prez, Macron, had said he will not recognize Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital but he otherwise will stick with the EU idea that Jerusalem should be a capital for both states in a two-state solution.

That's mighty WHITE of the Micro-Leader. And French. Maybe Trump out to move our French embassy to Marseilles. JUST BECAUSE.

I realize you know this, but it bears repeating: Jerusalem has been historically JEWISH and the de facto capital of Israel for over 2000 years.

The EU "idea" of a bi-capital for an alleged "two-state solution" makes as much sense as the EU's suicidal importation/invitation of Muzzie invaders, looters, rapists, and terrorists.

The EU's agenda is a literal occultist, One-World dictatorship in any case. Much like the Democrat Party in the US, the EU/UN are focused on "Divide & Conquer" tactics, lies, and propaganda...

As of late, even the subversive Vatican has stepped out of the closet to support the occultist One-World Gubmint agenda.

I realize you know this, but it bears repeating: Jerusalem has been historically JEWISH and the de facto capital of Israel for over 2000 years.

There have been many eras with widely varying Jewish population in Jerusalem and across the lands of ancient Israel.

It's a very long history.

A handful of small EU countries like Slovenia had been trying to agitate for EU countries to recognize Palestine as a state and its capital as Jerusalem, in effect granting Palestine the status of a nation. That would be a prelude to demanding that Palestine be given a seat at the U.N. So France won't be a part of that. And they do still hold a veto on the Security Council.

France NEVER warranted or deserved any UN VETO power to begin with...I know -- irrelevant to this debate.

As sister-EU leader to brother Germany (oh, the irony, huh?), behind the scenes the French PTB indeed support statehood for "Palestine"; They just won't publicly support it for a few reasons -- one, it would agitate Jews in high places. As well as Americans in high places. And anyone with a sense of propriety and truth.

There have been many eras with widely varying Jewish population in Jerusalem and across the lands of ancient Israel.

It's a very long history.

Yes, it is a very long history; Keyword: "Ancient." Jerusalem has been strongly associated with Israel historically longer and more legitimately than any other nation on the planet. If ever a case could be made for a nation's "Capital," "Jerusalem" is at the very top of the list.

Despite the many conquests and occupations by foreigners, Jerusalem has never stopped being the unofficial capital of Israel.

Historically and culturally -- Jerusalem more than any nation on earth -- merits and warrants official recognition and respect as a capital city of its people. In this case, obviously of Israel.

Any political proposal that suggests any other nation "share" its capital -- especially Jerusalem; especially with Muslims; especially the contrived "Palestine" -- is too bogus for words, based on a lie, and ...frankly, insulting to one's intelligence.

I realize you know this, but it bears repeating: Jerusalem has been historically JEWISH and the de facto capital of Israel for over 2000 years.

You mean, other than in 70 AD when the Romans leveled it, leaving it unrecognizable according to Josephus. Jesus did prophesy destruction of Jerusalem and the Disapora in Matthew 24. That's when they destroyed the other fortresses and cities of Israel. Enslaved the able-bodied adults and sold all under 17 as personal slaves. Josephus said 1.1 million inhabitants, mostly Jewish, were killed. Then Titus built the Arch of Titus to celebrate. The Jews really hate that thing.

Jerusalem has been strongly associated with Israel historically longer and more legitimately than any other nation on the planet.

The Chinese and especially the Japanese would dispute that. Others as well. Although I'm not saying that Jews have not had a substantial presence there throughout history.

The Chinese and especially the Japanese would dispute that. Others as well.

Expected. They might.

Wouldn't change the truth of the matter. The time line and continued historical documentation of Jerusalem as strongly associated with Israel is indisputable. That's even without laying the whole, "But God said Jerusalem and Israel are both the Jews' land!" out there.

Although I'm not saying that Jews have not had a substantial presence there throughout history.

You or anyone could challenge the assertion, but the Jews' constant and continued heavy presence and ownership in Jerusalem would still be true. They never abandoned the ship.

You mean, other than in 70 AD when the Romans leveled it, leaving it unrecognizable according to Josephus. Jesus did prophesy destruction of Jerusalem and the Disapora in Matthew 24. That's when they destroyed the other fortresses and cities of Israel. Enslaved the able-bodied adults and sold all under 17 as personal slaves. Josephus said 1.1 million inhabitants, mostly Jewish, were killed. Then Titus built the Arch of Titus to celebrate. The Jews really hate that thing.

Bunch of interesting historical tidbits you scrunched up in that little paragraph.

I guess it's hard to sleep on a bed of crushed rock and dust. Oy. "Sho vee took a little break....."

Bunch of interesting historical tidbits you scrunched up in that little paragraph.

Well, it is the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24 so it doesn't hurt to relay a summary of a contemporary Jew. Of course, Josephus wrote from a perspective that local Jewish leaders like the priests and the hothead Zealots provoked the Romans into destroying Jerusalem and other Jewish cities and sending most of the population into slavery. His account of the massacre and aftermath in Jerusalem is pretty grim stuff.

Of course, Josephus wrote from a perspective that local Jewish leaders like the priests and the hothead Zealots provoked the Romans into destroying Jerusalem and other Jewish cities and sending most of the population into slavery. His account of the massacre and aftermath in Jerusalem is pretty grim stuff.

It's a fascinating historical account. We're fortunate that his account was preserved for posterity. Rarely are past bloody aftermaths related in such detail. I'm sure The Almighty wanted it that way, told from an "outsider" perspective" so it couldn't be claimed to be biased in any way.

That the place and slaughter take place in Jerusalem is one in a litany of many accounts germane to Biblical prophecy and the Jews' self-destruction, redemption, and ultimate return to their home land.

Rarely are past bloody aftermaths related in such detail.

Josephus acted as the main negotiator with the Jews in Jerusalem for the Roman general. He was writing a personal account of it. He blamed the Jews but some historians thought he would have been afraid to write anything that would make an emperor want him dead.

He blamed the Jews but some historians thought he would have been afraid to write anything that would make an emperor want him dead.

Valid and logical claim.

Off the top of your head have you any idea of Josephus' timeline of his personal account?

Off the top of your head have you any idea of Josephus' timeline of his personal account?

Josephus was there from the beginning to the end AFAIK. He wrote about the entire operation.

Josephus surrendered to Titus' father and was very close to young Titus. Josephus was a Benedict Arnold who got full citizenship and took the family name (Titus Flavius Josephus) as his own. Definitely a dynastic family retainer type, a fixture of the court.

The Jewish War described briefly:

So, yeah, for the first-century, it was a very comprehensive account. We have few to match it or even to compare to it.

I may as well include this first-century bust which is supposedly Josephus himself:

So, yeah, for the first-century, it was a very comprehensive account. We have few to match it or even to compare to it.

Yes, extremely so. Wow.

To your knowledge are there any other sources of events at the time so to validate any or all of Josephus' accounts?

The "summary of Jewish history" seems to be worth a good read; I've only scraped the surface with respect to Josephus.

An aside: Is there no end to this ongoing assault on all things Christian? Even in this context?

(BOGUS)REASONS GIVEN HERE:

https://www.ancient.eu/article/1041/the-origin-and-history-of-the-bcece-dating-system/

Aside from being more accurate, BCE/CE is inclusive. The use of BC/AD relegates every event prior to, and since, the birth of Jesus of Nazareth subordinate to the Christian understanding of who he was. For Christians, Jesus is the Christ, the annointed of God, the messiah. The calendar "counts down" to the birth of Jesus and then proceeds to count away from it. To a Christian this may seem like simple common sense and the way the world works but not so to someone outside of that tradition. People of different cultures and belief systems should be able to access and discuss history without having to date it according to the Christian belief in Jesus as the son of God and the messiah.

It is for these reasons that Ancient History Encyclopedia, following standard scholarly guidelines in the 21st century, uses the designation BCE/CE instead of BC/AD.

The encyclopedia has an international audience of readers who embrace multiple faiths and recognize many different belief systems. Therefore, Ancient History Encyclopedia has adopted the BCE/CE designation in an effort to be accurate, adhere to scholarly principles, and be inclusive and welcoming to all.

BULLSH*T.

Maybe we ought to change our numerical system since it is Arab. Or Calendar. Because it is Roman.

SICK of "Inclusivity" used as a political sledgehammer by an anti-Christian academic "scholars."

Maybe we ought to change our numerical system since it is Arab. Or Calendar. Because it is Roman.

We already use the Western Arab numerals. There are also the slightly older Hindu-Arab numerals also. Here's a Wiki pic of an Egyptian phone showing both types of arab numerals. They've been in fairly widespread use for about 10-12 centuries.

Deuteronomy 10:19 “Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

There is no shortage of OT passages that plainly describe how Israel, upon returning from Egypt, are ordered to destroy the inhabitants who were living there, apparently peacefully. In some cases, they were ordered to kill all, in other cases they were permitted to spare some, but in all cases, Israel was preferred by God over those inhabitants. I've no doubt these references come into play when consideration of illegal settlements and purging Palestinians of farms and orchards, as per the sentiment described in the video I posted.

In the OT, it is supposedly God who makes these determinations of granting lands to whom, in some cases to the other tribes of the time (Moabites and Ammonites being examples, though they were conveniently marginalized as a people in the OT because they were supposedly the incestuous descendants of Lot and his 2 daughters) but usually it's written as God giving lands of native inhabitants to Israel. Obviously there was a lot of tribal warfare world over going back to the dawn of history, and even before, but it may be that Judaism is the faith that reaches back the farthest to these ancient times to glean some guidance as to how they are to think and act more so than any other major faith. And according to those texts, there is no dispute that Israel was a tribe of "God's chosen people" that had divine right to conquer & often destroy the those not of that tribe of Israel. And while Christianity recognizes a "new covenant" via Jesus that now treats all humans as equals, Judaism still has that old covenant in place, as it has not expired.

She never did convert. She flirted with it but didn't carry through.

I didn't know that.

So maybe a Gentile woman isn't the most reliable source of info.

Still, she studied it, and one need not be a member of a club to be an authority on it.

And, yes, Jews do charge interest to other Jews.

I did a little digging, and found this site which appears to be Jew oriented:

-------

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/64434/ribbis-interest-in-judaism

To answer your first question, the Torah is very clear that interest may not be charged to Jews, but may be charged to non-Jews:

Deuteronomy 23:21

Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.

----------

Just like all other major faiths, there are subsets that have somewhat different teachings (some Jews are not zionists) so I'm sure some Jews would subscribe to this, and others who would disregard it, but I guess the rule on interest is not universal among Jews.

All they've done is extend the olive branch while ceding land back to their perpetually hostile Muzzie tormentors after gaining it it two major wars (started of course BY Muzzie neighbors.)

Well, I think the 67 war was technically started by Israel, though possibly preemptively as it appeared Egypt and friends were building up.

But in any event, the current occupation of non-Israel land by Israeli forces is obvious, and the blockade of those people instituted by Israel is not in dispute. There are many goods you can buy in the hardware store that is not permitted into Gaza, which is in act of war if done aganist any other country. So no, the olive branch reference you gave is very wrong. Those under Israel's thumb are, without question, oppressed by Israel. Israel sees that as necessary to protect themselves, while Palestinians see that as a legitimate reason to hate Israelis. If Israel were to agree to a two state solution, the resulting government would have an interest in keeping Palestinians in line, in addition to allowing the people to be happier with more prosperous economic conditions. But it seems Israel prefers the oppressive situation with it's occasional terrorist acts and controversial world image than to treat Palestinians as a sovereign people.

Ping, you do understand the Koran's commandments with respect to Jews (I assume)?

I suppose I do. Just like I understand the Torah's commandments with respect to tribes foreign to ancient Israel. Seriously, I don't think the Koran is any worse than the Torah/Old testament in regard to how their respective non-believers are to be treated. In any event, many Muslims are indeed peaceful and loving, just as many Jews and Christians are. And all three of those groups have also produced those who engage in violence for religious/political ends.

Arafat was offered land, territory that would be considered a "Palestinian state" but rejected it. He took the money and the perpetual victimhood. Oh. And their "deal" is to occupy Israel. No compromise.

Maybe Arafat responded in his own interests, or maybe that deal was not the great thing for his people as you believe it was. From your writings, does appear you are biased, as I'm sure you'd agree.

*It needs to be noted that there is no "Palestinian" people, nor "Palestinian" culture, history, or semblance of gubmint or official leader UNTIL the sliver-state of Israel was re-established in 1948 (btw, their share of sovereign land was originally promised to be far greater -- until the Brits decided to give the vast majority of territory to Muslim pan-Jordan.)

Some zionists suggest the land was completely vacant when Jews returned there in 1948, and that all the Palestinians et al decided after that to move in. As I discussed earlier on this thread, I find that scenario very unlikely as once a land is inhabited, it's pretty much inhabited for all time thereafter. Even when a people is exiled from a place, the force that exiles them don't do it only to then vacate the place themselves. That just doesn't happen. When Jews returned to present day Israel, the people living there probably saw them as illegal aliens or perhaps "undocumented immigrants". Whatever oppression Jews suffered at the hands of Germany during WWII, it was not the doing of the people living in the middle east, and yet they had to and must continue to pay the price for a European country's sins.

Yes, I think it was Britain that was responsible for actually creating national boundries in the middle east, just as they did in Africa. Prior to that it was just borderless and tribal. But the borders created much larger kingdoms placing conflicting tribes under a single rule that created more serious conflict. I don't know that Britain carving up these two land masses did anyone other than Britain any favors.

Trump, the US, the UN are in NO position to deliver any such ultimatum to any sovereign nation.

An ultimatum to make peace or lose foreign aid? Yes Trump can absolutely do that. And he may get around to it before his first term is up. We'll see.

I realize you know this, but it bears repeating: Jerusalem has been historically JEWISH and the de facto capital of Israel for over 2000 years.

"De facto" means something that is true in practice but not otherwise technically true or legally true. I'm unclear on when Jews were supposedly exiled from the "holy land" during or after Roman rule (it seems from your sentence you believe some Jews have been there the entire time, even under hundreds of years of Muslim rule). But clearly, Jerusalem was not any de facto capital of Israel in those intervening centuries up until 1948 as Israel as a country did not exist.

Any political proposal that suggests any other nation "share" its capital -- especially Jerusalem; especially with Muslims; especially the contrived "Palestine" -- is too bogus for words, based on a lie, and ...frankly, insulting to one's intelligence.

The Islamic "Dome of the Rock" is in Jerusalem, which if memory serves me, is where Mohamed supposedly ascended into heaven. Seems there was a bit of that going on there at the time. hehe. Heck, maybe Islam actually copycatted the Christian narrative on that one.

And there are 1 billion Muslims in the world. While that lends religious and not legal/national interest to the city, a billion Muslim believers can kinda create a national interest.

"Dome of the Rock"

Israel should destroy it. Then build something specific in its place.

Jerusalem has been strongly associated with Israel historically longer and more legitimately than any other nation on the planet.

The Chinese and especially the Japanese would dispute that.

That's a good point. The Chinese culture would only be beaten by the Egyptians, had Egyptians been able to reasonably maintain the level of civilization they had 3-4k years ago. But I'd think the Chinese would predate the Japanese.

but the Jews' constant and continued heavy presence and ownership in Jerusalem would still be true. They never abandoned the ship.

Okay, then we should also point out that if true, then the Muslims did not exterminate them when they conquered the place even for hundreds of years. So if Muslims instinctively hate Jews as per your previous ref of the Koran, then why didn't they take them out when they had the chance? (I assumed your reference was that Muslims should kill Jews but... perhaps not?)

It would seem that during this time, the Muslims did not view Jews (or actually Israel) as they do today. So what changed?

Obviously Israel was created. Perhaps the beef Muslims have are less religious and more political than is commonly portrayed or assumed?

Once the Jews created a great environment, Arabs were hired as laborers. Later they became squatters on legally purchase land. That is who are the so-called Palestinians today.

Why can't you understand the Arabs don't want peace with the Jews? I don't think you want to understand it.

I read years ago that Baghdad was the oldest city.

The definition of "city" would be important to clarify. Two people pitching a tent could qualify, if the definition was extreme enough.

Some zionists suggest the land was completely vacant when Jews returned there in 1948, and that all the Palestinians et al decided after that to move in. As I discussed earlier on this thread, I find that scenario very unlikely as once a land is inhabited, it's pretty much inhabited for all time thereafter

A natural skeptic, Twain was not taken by the splendor of the Holy Land. He wrote irreverently about the country’s legendary sites. The Sea of Galilee was, “a solemn, sailless, tintless lake, as unpoetical as any bath-tub on earth.” The Church of the Nativity was “tricked out in the usual tasteless style observable in all the holy places of Palestine.”

Throughout Innocents Abroad, Twain explicitly states that the area was desolate and devoid of inhabitants. His group entered Palestine from the north, passing through such sites as the Sea of Galilee, the Banias, Nazareth, Jenin and Nablus.

Riding on horseback through the Jezreel Valley, Twain observed, “There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent – not for 30 miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride 10 miles, hereabouts, and not see 10 human beings.”

He continues, “Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery, I think Palestine must be the prince... Can the curse of the Deity beautify a land? “Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies.”

Twain was not alone in his poor impression of the land of milk and honey. Historians and travelers alike made similarly dreary observations over the centuries.

Six hundred years before Twain’s visit, another famous visitor with a nom de plume was struck by Jerusalem’s desolation. Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, known as Nachmanides (1194-1270), fled Christian Spain for the Land of Israel. After a long and perilous journey, Nachmanides arrived at the Port of Acre before traveling to Jerusalem in 1267, where he couldn’t even find nine other Jews to pray with. He wrote to his son, “Many are Israel’s forsaken places, and great is the desecration. The more sacred the place, the greater the devastation it has suffered. Jerusalem is the most desolate place of all.”

Nevertheless, the sage, whose Torah commentary is still studied, had an altogether surprising interpretation of the desolation he encountered. He saw it as a blessing in disguise.

Commenting on a verse in Leviticus that describes the curses that will befall the land of Israel, Nachmanides wrote that the devastation “constitutes a good tiding, proclaiming that during all our exiles, our land will not accept our enemies... Since the time that we left it, [the land] has not accepted any nation or people, and they all try to settle it... This is a great proof and assurance to us.”

The 13th-century scholar wrote that Israel will remain desolate until the Jewish People assume control. But when the people of Israel finally return to the land of Israel, the region will once again flourish thanks to Divine providence.

As the most famous eyewitness to the 19th-century desolation of Palestine, Twain was an unwitting collaborator of Nachmanides. Innocents Abroad brought global attention to the sorry state of Palestine and proved that Palestine was a land without a people for a people without a land just 15 years before the First Aliya and subsequent waves of Jewish immigration.

Half a century after Twain’s visit, the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917. Fifty years later the Six Day War was won. And today, in 2017 – 50 years after that – Israel continues to flourish, moving in leaps and bounds away from Twain’s “sackcloth and ashes.”

At various points throughout his journey, Twain criticized his fellow “American vandals abroad” for the petty buying and selling of holy land trinkets and religious artifacts. So what compelled this skeptical father of American literature to buy an olive wood-covered Bible for his mother? Twain might not have known it at the time, but by reporting on the “curses” of Palestine during his visit, he was lending credence to the biblical passages he famously mocked in his book, prophecies which were fulfilled less than a few decades later. Likewise, Twain’s decision to purchase a Bible over any other trinket is evidence that he was moved by the religious holiness and spirit of the land.

m.jpost.com/Opinion/Unto-the-nations-505760

The Jewish people bought the land they live in, including Palestine around 1900. It is well documented the land was hardly occupied at the time. In fact, it was a combination of deserts and disease infested swamps.

I've never heard of any part of Israel having swamps.

They bought it from greedy Arabs at inflated prices who laughed at the dumb Jews.

And I suppose if I sold you the Brooklyn bridge, that would make it yours also?

They, through hard work and effort made it liveable.

I thought it was the land "flowing with milk and honey". You make it sound more like Utah, where the Mormans settled and worked because no one else wanted to live there.

Once the Jews created a great environment, Arabs were hired as laborers. Later they became squatters on legally purchase land. That is who are the so-called Palestinians today.

Sounds like a very convenient story book tale for kids. Does it end with "and they lived happily ever after?"

Why can't you understand the Arabs don't want peace with the Jews? I don't think you want to understand it.

Because in real life, things are more complex than that. It's easy to grab onto and hold a small little belief like that and never let go -- it makes it much easier to dismiss any need for critical thought.

So lets' try some critical thought. Who were the Arabs the Jews supposedly bought the land from? Were they nobility? Probably not as I doubt there was anything approaching nobility in the Arab culture in 1900. How much did they pay? For how much land did they pay it? What authority or right did these mysterious Arabs sell the land? Did any of that money go to the people that were living there? If there was no one living there, why would these Jews pay anyone at all to move in?

Can you answer any of these questions? Or is it just easier to say Muslims hate Jews and be done with it?

I've never heard of any part of Israel having swamps.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170927-lord-balfours-nephew-palestine-was-a-swamp-before-israel/

The rest of your questions and comments are just empty rhetoric.

The Jew have legally owned the land they cultivated.

Interesting. Thank you. It is from jpost.com so that needs to be taken into account, but it is something to consider.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelogues_of_Palestine

Same quotes.

We already use the Western Arab numerals. There are also the slightly older Hindu-Arab numerals also. Here's a Wiki pic of an Egyptian phone showing both types of arab numerals. They've been in fairly widespread use for about 10-12 centuries.

Kinda cool, ain't it?

But for purely political or ideological reasons, we're not about to change it.

There is no shortage of OT passages that plainly describe how Israel, upon returning from Egypt, are ordered to destroy the inhabitants who were living there, apparently peacefully.

You have misunderstood the preceding scripture which explains in every case why God has ordered the destruction of inhabitants. It is crucial to read and understand right out of the gate from Genesis. Admittedly it's not all that easy to tie things together in some cases.

Cherry-picking OT scripture is a major problem for those who think this technique makes the case(s) that indict both the Jews and most of all, The Almighty as bad guys, unfairly picking on non-Jews for no good reason.

You're hardly alone in this regard -- even so-called "Believers" are confused in many cases. Unless as I'd suggested, OT scripture is read AND understood, and continuity maintained. If you're really curious and do truly want to understand God's reasons in the cases Jews are asked/demanded by God to eliminate others, Bible-study, willing knowledgeable mentors, or online sources would be helpful. (and btw, I still owe you a response and feedback on your own beliefs...sorry.)

In all cases, Israel was preferred by God over those inhabitants.

In general, Jews ARE indeed preferred or favored by The Almighty; They represent Mankind. But they are also severely disciplined or warned that they will be cursed and ARE cursed for disobedience. AND finally rewarded for perseverance. Just like the rest of Mankind.

In the OT, it is supposedly God who makes these determinations of granting lands to whom, in some cases to the other tribes of the time (Moabites and Ammonites being examples, though they were conveniently marginalized as a people in the OT because they were supposedly the incestuous descendants of Lot and his 2 daughters) but usually it's written as God giving lands of native inhabitants to Israel.

God's determinations and reasons for disciplining or destroying other tribes at the time aren't so simplistic or trivial.

You've obviously dug in pretty deeply -- more than many Believers, but understanding the dynamics (or rather mis-understanding the dynamics is sorta like having ever number of a lock-combo right...except for a single click. One wrong miscue and the entire thing in out of line, out of context or misunderstood.

Judaism is the faith that reaches back the farthest to these ancient times to glean some guidance as to how they are to think and act more so than any other major faith. And according to those texts, there is no dispute that Israel was a tribe of "God's chosen people" that had divine right to conquer & often destroy the those not of that tribe of Israel.

ONLY for divine purpose and reason -- not frivolously or just for the heck of it. God also allowed the same destruction and conquest to Israel and of Jewish people, didn't He?

And while Christianity recognizes a "new covenant" via Jesus that now treats all humans as equals, Judaism still has that old covenant in place, as it has not expired.

It expired the day Jesus Christ proclaimed His New Covenant and Gospel. And yes, for over 2000 years Judaism has ignored their own fulfilled prophecies, awaiting a Messiah that has already arrived.

(Maybe his worried look broken beak was a warning that Josephus had better edit his original account of "history.")

I can either spend half the day responding, or whittle it down to the basics. (I'll choose Plan B :-)

That's quite a beak on that bust.

Well, aquiline noses were all the rage back in the day. The sculptors had a pretty free hand to conform statues to the general Roman style.

We don't know how accurate any of these old Roman statues are.

Well, I think the 67 war was technically started by Israel, though possibly preemptively as it appeared Egypt and friends were building up.

The '67 War was clearly and factually pre-emptively started by the Arabs.

Six Days of Miracles (explained in just ten minutes)

Watching just the first 7:30 explains what happened as briefly as possible.

There are many goods you can buy in the hardware store that is not permitted into Gaza, which is in act of war if done aganist any other country.

Uh, perhaps because Palestinians keep on building home-made BOMBS with material from hardware stores. Capisce??

And IF you're referring to a "nation" -- like the fictional "Palestine" -- IT is NOT one. It is a UN-contrived perpetual refugee camp of so-called "Palestinians," aka displaces ARAB people (mostly from JORDAN) who are perpetually hostile to and at war forever with Israel.

Despite this hostility and constant warring against Israel, did you realize that it is ISRAEL that supplies them their electricity? And provides goods and services? AND gives Arabs/Muzzie citizenship and a voice in government? Now tell me the REVERSE would be remotely possible...

Those under Israel's thumb are, without question, oppressed by Israel.

Utter BS.

Israel sees that as necessary to protect themselves, while Palestinians see that as a legitimate reason to hate Israelis.

Total mischaracterization.

Palestinians, like ALL Muslims tribes, territories, states and nations HATE Jews and HATE Israel. And wish them D-E-A-D. And beside that, they HATE the "infidel," aka NON-Muzzies. So conclusively, Palestinians are just typical illogical Arabs/Muzzies/Death Cultists.

(You'd asked in another recent post why Muslims in the past didn't exterminate the Jews while they were in pwer in the region. One, they were mis-treated as Dhimmis. Two -- since Israel was re-created a nation AND as Israel thrived and beaten them in every war and embarrassed the Muslim World, their Koranian pledge to kill every last Jew is out in the open.)

If Israel were to agree to a two state solution, the resulting government would have an interest in keeping Palestinians in line, in addition to allowing the people to be happier with more prosperous economic conditions. But it seems Israel prefers the oppressive situation with it's occasional terrorist acts and controversial world image than to treat Palestinians as a sovereign people.

You're serious, aren't you? That's not only completely non-sensical, irrational and illogical, but patently untrue.

Abbas: 'Jordan and Palestine are One People in Two States'

Palestinian Authority leader makes statement likely to overjoy Israeli nationalists during meeting with Jordanian soccer head in Amman. Contact Editor Ari Soffer, 19:48

Were you aware that as had been reported in Feb 2015, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas described Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs as "one people living in two states"? Did you know that Abbas has Jordanian citizenship?

Why do advocates of an Israel-"Palestine" two-state solution completely IGNORE the fact that ALL OTHER Arab-Muslim nations -- especially Jordan -- refused to cede any of the British Mandate of Palestine (Arabs received the vast Lion's Share) to these "Arab Brothers"?

Do you know or acknowledge that Jordan had harassed, murdered, and finally driven out their "Arab Brothers" way back, exiling them to the desert? And THAT is how they wound up beggars at Israel's door. But don't believe me; Look it up.

Yet incredibly, you and others either convenient forget the truth or ignore it, putting ALL the blame on an "oppressive Israel."

For the life of me, I don't understand how sentient people concerned with truth ignore an oft-repeated Muzzie vow to destroy Israel with every chance it gets? Again, there IS no "Palestinian" history, culture, language, borders, and identity other than the the contrived grievance that Israel is "occupying" the fictional "nation" of "Palestine"?

Let's speculate for the sake of argument that "Palestine" is created as a "Two-State Solution"; End of story and of hostilities between the Arab World and Jews, right? WRONG.

Most of us know without a doubt that Arab-Muzzie nations would merely used a newly created "Palestinian neighbor" as a springboard from which to blitz Israel. AS THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. Nothing has changed.

And anyway, just why should Israel surrender its own sovereignty and security?

Seriously, I don't think the Koran is any worse than the Torah/Old testament in regard to how their respective non-believers are to be treated. In any event, many Muslims are indeed peaceful and loving, just as many Jews and Christians are. And all three of those groups have also produced those who engage in violence for religious/political ends.

Just...wow.

Geeez...ok, no need to exchange ideas or debate any further you on this subject if this is your delusional perspective. You've made your position clear. Ours would be an exercise in futility.

Well, aquiline noses were all the rage back in the day. The sculptors had a pretty free hand to conform statues to the general Roman style.

Maybe THAT was their plastic surgery fad back in the day. Maybe the bigger and more beakish the schnozz, the more masculine or powerful. And sculptor accommodated the wish of their customers.

We don't know how accurate any of these old Roman statues are.

True. Hmm...You mean centaurs might not actually have existed back then? :-(

And if Mona Lisa was considered "a beauty," those were dire time, weren't they?...